Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3329 (MAD)

Shanmugathai v. State of Tamil Nadu

2015-10-09

R.SUBBIAH

body2015
Order The Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent bearing OO.Ni.No.5/3556/2012 dated 26.07.2013 and the consequential impugned Gazette notification dated 01.08.2013 of the second respondent and quash the same. By the said order, the Inspector of Panchayat has removed the petitioners from the post of Panchayat President in respect of Asoor and Kattankulam Village Panchayat, respectively. 2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners have already been removed from the post of Panchayat President. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not refute the submissions of the learned Government Advocate. 4. In a similar circumstances, this Court had an occasion to consider the issue involved in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.955 of 2015. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, by this Court, on 19.08.2015, wherein, this Court has held as follows:- “10. Now, the 2nd respondent has passed the final order (impugned order) under Section 205(11) of the Act and the same was also published in the Government Gazette. Even according to the petitioner, he had participated in the personal enquiry and submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. After the dismissal of the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner herein, the impugned order has been passed by the 2nd respondent, after convening the meeting of the ward members of the panchayat. Now, the matter has attained finality. At this juncture, the petitioner cannot go back and question the notice issued by the 4th respondent dated 07.07.2014 to convene the meeting of all the ward members of the panchayat with regard to the proposal for removing the petitioner from the post of President of the village panchayat. As contended by the learned Government Advocate, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, he has to approach the Government under Section 205(12) of the Act. In this regard, a reference could be made in the judgment of this Court reported in (2009) 2 MLJ [Dist. Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayat Vs. S. Senthamizh Selvi], wherein it has been held as follows:- “6. In this regard, a reference could be made in the judgment of this Court reported in (2009) 2 MLJ [Dist. Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayat Vs. S. Senthamizh Selvi], wherein it has been held as follows:- “6. However, against the order which has been passed by the Inspector, the person aggrieved has the right to approach the Government under Section 205(12) of the said Act. The said provision is extracted hereinbelow: “(12) The Government shall have power to cancel any notification issued under sub-section (11) and may, pending a decision on such cancellation, postpone the date specified in such notification.” The said provision has not been exhausted before filing the writ petition. We, therefore, give liberty to the writ petitioner, the first respondent herein, to exhaust the said remedy, if she is so advised, within a fortnight from today.......” The dictum laid down the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. The present writ petition, challenging the order of removal of the petitioner from the post of President of the village panchayat passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 205(11) of the Act, is not maintainable before this Court. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed and the interim stay already granted by this Court is vacated. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” 5. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner therein went on appeal in W.A.(MD).No.938 of 2015. However, the said Writ Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.09.2015 confirming the order made in W.P.(MD).No.955 of 2015. 6. As the facts pleaded in both the Writ Petitions are akin to the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No. 955 of 2015, the Writ Petitions are also dismissed by holding that the petitioners are directed to approach the Government under Section 205(12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.